Einstein's Theory - Is Moving Away at Speed 'c' Constant Time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gpsinghsandhu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory
gpsinghsandhu
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I saw in some video that acc. to the theory if we move away from a clock with a speed 'c', then we would see a constant time. Is it correct? Please explain..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you could move away from a clock at speed c and you were looking back at the clock, isn't it obvious that you would continually see the same image of the clock, ie, not changing?
 
gpsinghsandhu said:
I saw in some video that acc. to the theory if we move away from a clock with a speed 'c', then we would see a constant time. Is it correct? Please explain..

By "constant time," do you mean that the clock reading would stand still? No, it wouldn't stand still, but you would see the clock as running slower.

If you want to get started on special relativity, a book I always recommend to people is Relativity Simply Explained by Gardner.
 
bcrowell said:
By "constant time," do you mean that the clock reading would stand still? No, it wouldn't stand still, but you would see the clock as running slower.
The question was specifically about moving away from the clock at c, not just a fraction of c, so I think the correct answer--as you have noted in other discussions--is that relativity doesn't allow us to talk about the point of view of an observer moving at exactly c (it would be impossible to accelerate any observer to c, and photons don't have their own rest frame or a way of measuring time)
 
JesseM said:
The question was specifically about moving away from the clock at c, not just a fraction of c, so I think the correct answer--as you have noted in other discussions--is that relativity doesn't allow us to talk about the point of view of an observer moving at exactly c (it would be impossible to accelerate any observer to c, and photons don't have their own rest frame or a way of measuring time)

Oops, I missed the fact that the OP said at c. You're right, of course.
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top